People v. Garcia

• Docket Number: 1-21-1251
• Decision Date: 16 February 2024
• Citation: 2024 IL App (1st) 211251 U
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JULIO GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

1

2024 IL App (1st) 211251-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JULIO GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-21-1251

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division

February 16, 2024

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County.No. 13 CR 6374Honorable Kerry M. Kennedy, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE MIKVAdelivered the judgment of the court.Presiding Justice Mitchell and Justice Navarro concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

MIKVA JUSTICE

¶ 1Held: Defendant's convictions for predatory criminal sexual assault are affirmed where the trial court did not deprive defendant of a fair trial by limiting evidence concerning allegations of sexual abuse regarding other minors.

¶ 2 Following a bench trial, defendantJulio Garcia was convicted of four counts of predatory criminal sexual assault (PCSA) against his stepdaughter and sentenced to four consecutive prison terms of 11 years.On appeal, Mr. Garcia contends that the court deprived him of a fair trial by limiting evidence that his ex-wife Iwona Garcia(Iwona) made complaints against him of child sexual abuse of their own children.For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Mr. Garcia was charged with multiple counts of PCSA allegedly committed against J.K., Iwona's daughter and Mr. Garcia's stepdaughter, between January 1, 2008, and December 24, 2008, when she was under 13 years old (720 ILCS 5/12-14.1(a)(1)(West 2008)).

¶ 5 Just before the 2018 trial, the State made an oral motion in limine to bar statements from any witnesses about allegations made by Mr. Garcia's biological children that he"engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with those children."Specifically, the State suggested that Mr Garcia intended to introduce hearsay statements through the Calumet City Police Department and "other witnesses" regarding these other allegations of sexual abuse that Iwona had made against Mr. Garcia.The State argued that this evidence was inadmissible hearsay and irrelevant to the case regarding J.K.

¶ 6 Defense counsel told the court that Iwona had threatened to accuse Mr. Garcia of "molest[ing][his] children" if he did not increase child support.Counsel characterized those allegations against Mr. Garcia as false.Counsel wanted to be able to impeach Iwona with evidence about these complaints if she denied them and said there were reports from the police and the Department of Children and Family Services to use as impeachment.Counsel argued that the statements were relevant to the defense's theory that Iwona was using allegations that Mr. Garcia abused children including his own, to obtain more child support from Mr Garcia.

¶ 7The court granted the State's motion in limine, finding the evidence was irrelevant to the case regarding J.K.: "[Y]ou're trying to lasso in other alleged victims *** into this case.They're not part of this case."

¶ 8 During opening statements at trial, defense counsel mentioned that Iwona sought more child support in 2012, and the State objected based on the court's ruling on its motion in limine.Defense counsel responded that the ruling in limine concerned "the molestation of [Mr. Garcia's] children" while defense counsel was making an argument about Iwona seeking more child support, and that Mr. Garcia would testify that once child support was reduced rather than increased, Iwona "started calling him about the molestation" of J.K. Defense counsel acknowledged that he could not "get into the other ones because [the court] ruled on that."(Emphasis added.)The court overruled the objection and held that Mr. Garcia could testify as counsel proposed he would because "[t]hat's different" from the evidence barred by the ruling in limine.

¶ 9 J.K. testified she was 19 years old at the time of trial in December 2018.Before 2010, she lived with Mr. Garcia, Iwona, N.G., and I.G.Mr. Garcia, whom J.K. identified in court, was Iwona's husband but not J.K.'s father.After N.G. was born in late July 2008, Iwona would take N.G. and I.G. to daycare when she went to work, leaving J.K. and Mr. Garcia home alone until J.K. went to school.J.K. testified that Mr. Garcia "would touch my private parts.And he would perform oral sex on me, and he would make me perform oral sex on him."

¶ 10 J.K. said that the first incident occurred in the living room as J.K. was asleep on the sofa.She awoke to Mr. Garcia standing in front of her with his pants and underwear down and his "private parts in [her] face."She turned to face the back of the sofa and went back to sleep.She later "woke up to him performing oral sex on me" and her pants and underwear pulled down.She told him to stop, and he did.

¶ 11 In another incident, J.K. testified, she was on the living room sofa, while Iwona, N.G., and I.G. were in bed.Mr. Garcia "put on a porno," or video depicting a man and woman having sexual intercourse including oral sex.He then sat down on the sofa next to J.K., unzipped his pants, pulled out his penis, and pushed her head down onto his erect penis.She pushed away, but he pushed her closer with one hand and held her hair with the other.She then performed oral sex on him.When the oral sex ended, Mr. Garcia masturbated as he watched the video.

¶ 12 The aforesaid incidents occurred at night, but J.K. stated other incidents occurred in the morning.One morning, J.K. was in Iwona's bed waiting to go to school when she awoke to Mr. Garcia "performing oral sex on [her]."Her pants and underwear were pulled down but had not been when she fell asleep.She told him to stop, and he did.

¶ 13 J.G., who was 10 years old in 2008, was J.K.'s cousin.J.G. and J.K. went on a fishing trip with Mr. Garcia that year.At one point, Mr. Garcia told J.K. that J.G. "was going to do it too," which J.K. took to mean he"was going to make [J.G.] perform oral sex on him."J.K. was scared and angry, and told him, "no, she's not," which made him angry.

¶ 14 The day after the fishing trip, J.K. was in the living room, while Iwona, N.G., and I.G. were asleep in bed, when Mr. Garcia came into the living room and "turned on another porno."He unzipped his pants, took out his erect penis, "put his hand on [J.K.'s] head, held up [her] hair, and put [her] head toward his penis."Her mouth was on his penis for a "few minutes," until Iwona's footsteps prompted Mr. Garcia to pull up his pants and pretend to be asleep.J.K. "just stood there" as Iwona went to the bathroom and returned to bed without entering the living room.After the fishing trip, Mr. Garcia forced J.K. to perform oral sex on him "around five more" times and he performed oral sex on her "around five times."

¶ 15 J.K. never told anyone about the incidents with Mr. Garcia as they were occurring.She said that she continued having oral sex with Mr. Garcia after the fishing trip so he would not abuse J.G.In late summer or early fall of 2008, J.K. wrote a note to Iwona, which J.K. identified at trial.In the note, J.K. wrote, "Mommy I am so sorry but Julio was telling me to touch his priv[a]te part ever since I was in 1st grade when you were at work!He does that to other older women 2!Do not yell at me!P.S., Sometimes he would order nasty movies on Comcast![J.K.'s signature] Note I never touched his priv[a]te part."

¶ 16 J.K. testified that her note correctly stated that Mr. Garcia had been telling her to touch his private parts since she was in the first grade.She could not recall why she wrote that Mr. Garcia "does that to other older women."The "nasty movies" were the "porno" videos Mr. Garcia would show J.K. before forcing her to have oral sex.It was untrue that J.K. "never touched his private part," but she wrote that because she"was scared to come out with the full truth."

¶ 17 J.K. left the note on the sofa for Iwona to find.Iwona and J.K. then discussed the note, but J.K. did not give further details about what Mr. Garcia did to her because she was scared and ashamed.She wrote the note because she"was tired of the abuse."After her discussion with J.K., Iwona confronted Mr. Garcia, who left the home and never returned.He had visits with N.G and I.G. elsewhere.

¶ 18 In January 2013, J.K. told Iwona during an argument that Mr. Garcia forced her to perform oral sex on him and performed oral sex on her.The argument ended and they discussed what Mr. Garcia did.Sometime after the discussion, J.K. went to a police station, but did not talk to any police officers about the specifics of what had occurred with Mr. Garcia.She did discuss them with "a social worker" whose job was to "listen to kids tell their story."Nobody told J.K. what to say to that person or "to make up allegations" against Mr. Garcia, and J.K. expressly denied that Iwona had told her to do either.J.K. also testified that she knew some of Mr. Garcia's family lived in Texas, and she had been there once, before her 2008 note to Iwona.

¶ 19 On cross-examination, J.K. testified that she did not cry out when Mr. Garcia was abusing her.Except when Iwona awoke to use the bathroom, Iwona never woke up during any incident though her bedroom was near the living room.J.K. acknowledged that her statement to the social worker described four incidents.J.K. said that "[i]t happened plenty of times," but that those were the incidents she recalled "vividly."When shown a certain photograph, J.K. identified Iwona, N.G., and I.G., but denied that she was the fourth person in the photo.J.K. denied going to Padre Island with her family in 2009.

¶ 20 Iwona testified that she married Mr. Garcia and they had two children together, N.G. and I.G.While Iwona...